R.M. MURALEEDHARAN Vs. STATE OF KERALA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner is an employee of the Tranvancore Devaswom Board discharging the duties of a "Kazhakam" in Changamkari temple. He approached this Court through the present writ petition seeking a direction to the official respondents to take disciplinary proceedings against certain police officers, in particular the 3rd respondent, and also for a direction to the 2nd respondent to initiate criminal proceedings against the said police officers, based on the report submitted by the 5th respondent.

(2.) THE brief facts necessary for a disposal of the writ petition are as follows: - -

(3.) COUNTER affidavits have been filed on behalf of respondents 1, 2, 3, 5, 6 and 8. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the State Government as also respondents 2,5 and 8, the sequence of events leading to the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against the 3rd respondent, as also the findings in the enquiry report and the consequential order passed by the disciplinary authority are narrated. In particular, it is pointed out that the 3rd respondent was only entrusted with the task of filing the final report before the Crl. Court in Crime.No.255 of 2004 and hence he could not be seen as a person who was responsible for acting against the interest of the petitioner while drawing up the charges that were eventually filed against the petitioner in that case. It is pointed out that the case against the petitioner was initially registered by K. Vijayan, who was the Assistant Sub Inspector of Police and the investigation was conducted by the 6th respondent who retired on 30.11.2004. It is also pointed out that the 3rd respondent was then undergoing a period of training. These facts are brought out in the counter affidavits only to show that the other persons, against whom allegations were raised by the petitioner, had since retired from service and the 3rd respondent, who was the only one left in service, was not a person who was in any way responsible for the drawing up of erroneous charges against the petitioner. The counter affidavits filed on behalf of the 3rd respondent and the 6th respondent also to the same line.